Open Access Research Article
EXTENDED DIMENSION OF ARTICLE 21 IN POST MANEKA GANDHI ERA AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Published Paper
Article Details
EXTENDED DIMENSION OF ARTICLE 21 IN POST MANEKA GANDHI
ERA AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Authored By - Jitaksh Kachhawah & Aniket Singh[1]
ABSTRACT
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is
a landmark case of the post-emergency period. This case shows how liberal
tendencies have influenced the Supreme Court (SC) in interpreting the
fundamental rights, particularly, Article 21. Maneka Gandhi’s case has been
exerting a multidimensional impact on the development of constitutional law in
India. Article 21 which had lain dormant for nearly three decades was brought
to life by the now famous SC decision in Maneka Gandhi. Since then, Article 21
has been on its way to emerging as the Indian version of the American concept
of due process. It has become a source of many substantive rights and
procedural safeguards to the people. This article focuses on the various
dimensions of Article 21 and the conflicts relating to them.
INTRODUCTION
Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI) is the most important
fundamental right and its scope has evolved over time. When it first came into
being it had a narrow scope and with various judicial precedents the scope of
Article 21 was expanded. In the present time, Article 21 has become the
backbone of the fundamental rights in our country and it has been used in
various judgements to stuck down arbitrary restrictions on restraining the
right to life of the citizens. The Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India,[2] is
one such judgment which helped in the evolution of Article 21. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a
landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1978. The Court
held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution includes the right to know the reasons for arrest or detention,
and the right to be heard before any order is passed that affects the life or
liberty of a person. One can also say that the Maneka Gandhi Case gave rise to
the Indian version of the concept of “Due process of law?. Since Maneka, the
Supreme Court has often emphasised that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not
mutually exclusive, but rather "sustain, strengthen, and nourish each
other." The Maneka Gandhi judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 and
laid down the principle of natural justice, which requires that any decision
that affects the rights of a person must be taken after giving them an
opportunity to be heard. The judgment has been widely celebrated for its
progressive interpretation of fundamental rights and its contribution to the
development of constitutional law in India.
MANEKA
GANDHI’S CASE
Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, and politician had her passport impounded by
the Indian government on the grounds that it was in the interest of the general
public. She challenged this decision in court, arguing that she had not been
given an opportunity to be heard and that the impounding of her passport was a
violation of her fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held
that the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right to personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also
held that any procedure that takes away a person's personal liberty must be
just, fair, and reasonable. The court also ruled that the principles of natural
justice, including the right to be heard, must be followed while depriving a
person of their personal liberty.
IMPACT
OF MANEKA GANDHI’S CASE
The Maneka Gandhi v Union of India,
judgment expanded the scope of fundamental rights by emphasising the broader meaning and interpretation of the right
to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The
court held that the right to life and personal liberty is not confined to mere
physical existence, but includes within its ambit the right to live with
dignity, the right to privacy, and the right to travel abroad. The judgment
also recognized the importance of the due process of law and the principle of
natural justice in the protection of fundamental rights. The Maneka Gandhi
judgment laid the foundation for subsequent judicial decisions that have
expanded the scope of fundamental rights in India. For example, the right to
privacy was recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the
landmark judgment of Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India (2017).[3]
Similarly, the right to live with dignity has been recognized in cases relating
to custodial violence, sexual harassment at the workplace, and the rights of
transgender persons. Prior to this judgment, the power of judicial review was
not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, the judgment
reaffirmed the importance of judicial review in protecting fundamental rights
and recognized it as an inherent part of the constitutional framework. The
court held that the courts have the power to examine the validity of executive
and legislative actions that affect the rights of citizens. This principle has
been subsequently applied in numerous cases to ensure that executive and
legislative actions are not arbitrary, capricious, or violative of fundamental
rights. The Maneka Gandhi judgment also reaffirmed the importance of the
judiciary as an independent and impartial arbiter of disputes, and recognized
its role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. In subsequent cases, the power of judicial
review has been used to strike down laws that are unconstitutional or violate
fundamental rights, and to ensure that executive and legislative actions are
taken in a fair and just manner.
The court also held that the principles of natural justice and due
process of law are essential components of the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed that any law or procedure that
deprives a person of his or her life or liberty must be fair, just and
reasonable, and must follow the principles of natural justice. The Maneka
Gandhi judgment laid down the framework for the protection of due process rights
in India. The courts have also developed procedures for protecting personal
liberty, such as the writ of habeas corpus, which allows a person to challenge
unlawful detention. The judgment has also influenced the development of other
procedural safeguards in Indian law. For example, the right to a fair trial,
the right to be heard, and the right to representation have been recognized as
part of the principles of natural justice and due process of law.
NEW
DIMENSIONS OF ARTICLE 21
Article 21 guarantees everyone's right to life and liberty. The term
"life" has taken on a comprehensive meaning. The phrase
"personal liberty" has been given a very broad amplitude, including a
number of rights that contribute to a citizen's personal liberty. Its
deprivation shall only take place in accordance with the relevant method
specified in the applicable legislation,but the procedure must be fair, as
Article 21 utilises essential phrases, like "life," and
"personal liberty," Both of these expressions have been explained in
detail below:
Life
The court in Maneka Gandhi recognised the broad scope of the right to
life, ruling that it includes the right to live with dignity, personal liberty,
and the freedom to travel abroad. This ruling paved the way for a broader
interpretation of the right to life under Article 21. In following judgements,
the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to life encompasses the right to a
healthy environment, the right to an education, and the right to a living wage.
The Maneka Gandhi decision has also been referenced in matters affecting the
right to privacy, free expression, and personal autonomy.
The Supreme Court in Francis
Coralie v. Delhi,[4]
stated that “expression 'life' in Article 21 does not connote merely physical or
animal existence but embraces something more. "We think that the night to
life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with
it, namely, the bare necessity of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and
shelter over their head”. In Shantisar
Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totame[5],
the Supreme court observed that “the right to life under Article 21 would
include the right of food, clothing, decent environment and reasonable
accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a
human being for shelter has to be kept in view.” Further, Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,[6]
emphasises the term life in Article 21 is not only restricted to the mere
existence of a person but means something more and is “the inhibiting against
the deprivation of the life extends to all those limits and faculties by which
life is enjoyed”. What all the above cases have in common is that the Supreme
Court has interpreted the term “life” in a broad manner according to the need
of the particular time and circumstances.
Personal Liberty
Personal liberty, the court recognised, is not limited to bodily
restriction, but also includes diverse characteristics of individual freedom
such as freedom of thinking, conscience, and ideas. The Court ruled that the
term 'personal liberty' is used as a compendious term to include within itself
all the varieties of rights which go to make up the "Personal Liberties".
Justice Bhagwati observed in Maneka
Gandhi
that
„the expression
„personal
liberty?
in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude
and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty
of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct Fundamental
Rights and given additional protection under Article 19”.[7]
The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh v.
APO,[8]
said that the freedom to go abroad was deemed to be an aspect of an
individual's "personal liberty," and so no one may be denied his
right to travel except in accordance with the legal system. Because a passport
is required to exercise that right, denial of a passport amounts to deprivation
of personal liberty. A 2009 decision reaffirms that tight limitations of
'personal liberty' cannot be defined while simultaneously ordering that such
liberty must accommodate public interest. The freedom of a woman to make
reproductive choices has been defined as a facet of "personal
liberty" under Article 21. The court in the respective judgement observed
that “women?s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of personal liberty as it
directly affects a women?s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity which is crucial to consider.”[9]
These cases illustrate how the Maneka Gandhi case has had a far-reaching impact
on the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21.
RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court has been interpreting the scope of Article 21 according
to the needs of modern times, since the advent of the Maneka Gandhi Case.
Following are the most important recent development in the field Article 21:
1) KS
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): This landmark case recognized the right to
privacy as a fundamental right. The court held that the right to privacy is an
essential aspect of personal liberty under Article 21.
2) Navtej
Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):[10]
In this case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code, which criminalized consensual homosexual activities. The court held that
the criminalization of same-sex relations violated the right to personal
liberty and privacy under Article 21.
3) Shayara
Bano v. Union of India (2017):[11]
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the practice of triple talaq (instant
divorce) in Muslim personal law was unconstitutional as it violated the right
to dignity and personal liberty of Muslim women.
4) Common
Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India:[12]
In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a
fundamental right under Article 21 and upheld the constitutional validity of
passive euthanasia.
5) In People?s
Union for Civil Liberties v UOI,[13]
it was held that the Right to Food is essential and states cannot escape the
responsibility of ensuring it.
6) In Chameli
Singh v State of U.P,[14]
it was considered that broadening this very Article provides a new meaning to
it in respect of the right to shelter by the Apex court. To make the poor's
rights legitimate, the state must give housing facilities and opportunities.
Because it is the State's constitutional duty to provide housing for the needy,
acquiring land for the purpose of providing house sites for the impoverished is
a public purpose.
CONCLUSION
The impact of the Maneka Gandhi case has been far-reaching and has
influenced several subsequent judgements related to the interpretation of
Article 21. The case has been cited in many subsequent judgements, including
the K.S. Puttaswamy case, olga tellis case etc, along with the Common Cause
case, which dealt with the right to die with dignity. Several legal experts and
scholars have also praised the Maneka Gandhi judgement for its contribution to
the development of constitutional law in India. For example, V.N. Shukla, in
his book "Constitutional Law of India," called the judgement a
"milestone" in Indian constitutional history and praised the Supreme
Court for "breathing life" into Article 21. The judgement was a very
significant development for introducing the concept of due process and
expanding the scope of Article 21 beyond mere physical existence. The overall
effect of the judgement was huge on Article 21 and the constitution itself and
it was also necessary. But now the question remains, is it enough? Maneka
Gandhi Case was referred in many judgement and even at recent time the judgements
are based on the scope set by Maneka Gandhi Case but it doesn't necessarily
mean that our judiciary as well as the legislature has been confined to the
scope set by Maneka Gandhi Case. With the recent development in technology the
functionality of state is changing and the scope and applicability of Article
21 should be expanded when required. In the
light of aforementioned article it could be observed that Maneka Gandhi was a
very significant case for the development of the overall Constitution of India.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Dicey, A.V., The Law of the Constitution (10th ed.
1959).
2.
Basu, Durga Das, Shorter Constitution of India (14th
ed. 2020).
3.
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. 2020).
4.
Mahajan, V.D., Constitutional Law of India (6th ed.
2017).
5.
Shukla, V.N., Constitutional Law of India (6th ed. 2010).
REFERENCES
1.
Jus Corpus, "Salma Ara v State of UP" (Jus
Corpus, 2022) [https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/118.-Salma-Ara.pdf]
2.
Singh, Raghav. "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India:
A Landmark Case in Indian Legal History." iPleaders Blog, June 28, 2017, https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-
union-of-india/.
3.
Author Unknown, "Maneka Gandhi," Legal
Services India, https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/717/Maneka-Gandhi.html
(accessed on August 20 , 2023)
[1] This article has been written by
Jitaksh Kachhawah and Aniket Singh, 5th semester atudent of BALLB,
Amity Law School, Amity University Rajasthan.
[2] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
[3] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[4] Supreme Court in Francis Coralie
v. Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, 753.
[5] Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan
Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC520 : AIR 1990 SC 630.
[6] Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Muncipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 : (1985) 3 SCC 545.
[7] State of West Bengal v. Ashok Dey,
AIR 1972 SC 1660.
[8] Satwant Singh v. APO, AIR 1967 SC
1836.
[9] Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh
Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 : AIR 2010 SC 235.
[10] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union
of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[11] Shayara Bano v. Union of India,
(2017) 9 SCC 1.
[12] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v.
Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1.
[13] People?s Union for Civil
Liberties v UOI [2004] 2 SCC 476.
Article Information
EXTENDED DIMENSION OF ARTICLE 21 IN POST MANEKA GANDHI ERA AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Authors: Jitaksh Kachhawah, Aniket Singh
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/20
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.